PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO KAISER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ESTHER ATAM,
Plaintiff,

vs.
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; SARAH
POETTER, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DOES 1
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants

Case No.: 21STCV41538

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO KAISER
FOUNDATION HOSPITALS’:
1. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;
2. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;
3. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. Summary judgment or adjudication is only appropriate when no material issue
fact exists and where the record establishes as a matter of law that a cause of action asserted
cannot prevail. See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); Avila v. Standard Oil Co., 167 Cal.App.3d 441,
446 (1985).
2. The burden is on the moving party to “conclusively negate” a necessary element
on the nonmoving party’s case or demonstrate “that under no hypothesis is there a material issue
of fact” that would “require a reasonable trier of fact not to find any underlying material fact
more likely than not.” Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 6 Cal.4th 666, 673-674 (1993); Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 35 Cal.4th 826, 851 (2001).
3. Defendants must “present evidence, and not simply point out through argument,
that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” Aguilar,
supra, at 854; Pisaro v. Brantley, 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1601 (1996). This burden-shifting statute
requires the Court to strictly construe the moving party’s papers, while liberally construing the
Plaintiffs’ papers, resolving “all doubts” against the Defendants and viewing all the evidence and
all the inferences in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Aguilar, supra, at 843; Amico v. Bd.
of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 20 (1974); Eagle Oil & Ref. Co. v. Prentice, 19 Cal.2d 553,
556 (1942) (“The summary judgment procedure, inasmuch as it denies the right of the adverse

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS’:1. NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;2.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;3. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION; – 3
party to a trial, is drastic and should be used with caution.”)
B. COURTS MUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE IN A LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE TO THE OPPOSING PARTY IN RULING ON A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
4. A defendant moving for summary judgment must show either that the plaintiff
cannot establish one or more elements of a cause of action or that there is a complete defense to
the action. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(o) and (p). If the defendant makes the required
showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence that there is a triable issue of
material fact. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780. There is a triable
issue if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of
plaintiff. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.
5. “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that
there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.
6. “All doubts as to whether there are any triable issues of fact are to be resolved in
favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Ingham v. Luxor Cab Co. (2001) 93
Cal.App.4th 1045, 1049. In ruling on the motion, a court must “consider all of the evidence” and
“all” of the “inferences” reasonably drawn there from, and must view such evidence and such
inferences, in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Code of Civil Procedure §
437(c)(c); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal. 4th at p. 843.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS’:1. NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;2.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;3. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION; – 4
C. THERE EXIST TRIABLE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS
TO WHETHER DEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS CONTROLLED
PLAINTIFF’S “WAGES, HOURS OR WORKING CONDITIONS”
7. “[N]o generally applicable rule of law imposes on anyone other than an employer
the duty to pay wages.” Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 49.
8. Under California law, the question of whether an employment relationship exists
is generally reserved for the trier of fact. This remains true where the evidence, though not in
conflict, permits conflicting inferences. A court may decide the existence of an employment
relationship as a matter of law only if the evidence and inferences support one reasonable
conclusion. Brassinga v. City of Mountain View (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 195, 201.
9. “The employer…is the party who hires the employee and benefits from the
employee’s work, and this it is the employer to whom liability should be affixed for any unpaid
wages.” Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1432.
10. There are triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals employed Plaintiff.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS’:1. NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;2.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;3. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION; – 5
D. IF THE COURT GRANTS SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO THE
CAUSES OF ACTION DISPUTED ABOVE, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO AMENT THE COMPLAINT ON ORDER TO RENDER
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
11. Had the causes of action been properly addressed in a demurrer, Plaintiff would
have addressed the concerns and amended the complaint in order to correct the errors in the
pleading. Importantly, if the Court grants leave to amend, the underlying facts of this case will
remain unchanged and Defendants will not be prejudiced.
12. California courts have held that amendments to pleadings should be granted
liberally with the object of affording every litigant his day in court and to render substantial
justice between parties. Kauffman v. Bobo & Wood, 99 Cal.App.2d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950).
This well-known rule aims to further the preferred policy that cases should be decided on their
merits. Cardenas v. Elston, 259 Cal. App. 2d 232 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968); see also Klopstock v.
Superior Court of San Francisco, 17 Cal. 2d 13 (1941). Thus, if justice will be served by
permitting amendment, and the rights of the other parties will not be prejudiced, it is error to
refuse permission to amend.
13. Further, if the refusal to amend prevents a party from asserting a meritorious
claim, denying leave to amend is not only error, it is an abuse of discretion. Morgan v. Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, 172 Cal. App. 2d 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959). Code of Civil
Procedure §576 authorizes “[a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in

E. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to DISMISS Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ Motion for Summary Judgment with
costs payable by Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.

Dated this ____ day of May, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Esther Atam,
Plaintiff in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

Recent Posts

Quick Links

Legal Info

Services

Contact Us